Why We Always Need To Think Of The Collective...

Hello Celticguy,

Commerce is not a social interaction. Its commerce.

Oh, I get it. You think it's not a social interaction unless it's something like a party?

"a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners"

Here's the definition of 'Society' I was thinking of when I penned the OP:

"an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another"

"an interdependent system of organisms or biological units"

Not all social interactions are mutually beneficial (traffic ticket).
You seek to conflate the two. I know better.

You are using a selective definition for 'society' and I am using a broader definition, that's all.

And what does it matter?

I recognize that humans are socially interdependent, have their needs met by being part of the collective of humans; you have this perverse idea that we are all loners and only interact when it suits us, but that is not any form of meeting anyone's needs.
 
Hello Celticguy,

The left frequently redefines language to support notions that are otherwise insupportable.
"Racist" is a good example.

I am using a straight up definition of 'Society,' right out of the dictionary. And besides, it is more often the right which has to rewrite the narrative, rewrite history, to fit their propaganda.
 
"the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society."

That's it, right there. The world is a large community of humans. Generally, all the humans on Earth are part of human society.
 
It's pretty basic logic:

a) We are humans.

b) Humans exist in societies. Societies serve the needs of the individuals.

c) If a majority of humans become sociopaths; then society will fail.

SO:

d) Individualism must be balanced with consideration for society. Most individuals must do something for society or society will fail.

And,

e) Since some are far more able to contribute, if they do contribute more, then society can do much more to enhance it's service to individuals.

***

This is all a logical progression of facts and conclusions on the assumption that we want society to improve and continue to thrive.

And that is why we always have to think of the collective. It's the kind of guidance which, if followed by most members of society, leads to the quality of life continuing to improve in that society. Promoting the GENERAL welfare ensures domestic peace and tranquility, so that society will endure. Our Constitution wisely says so.

Socialism is all about what is good for the society. Capitalism, while providing a lot for society, is also about what a shrewd and determined individual can do for himself. And that's wonderful in good measure. Just not always. It is only logical that these two pursuits must be balanced with one another.

What is the correct balance between selfish concerns and social concerns? Like it or not, humans are becoming more interconnected and interdependent as time progresses. It is only natural and predictable that some will resist recognizing the collective in their own way. But emotional resistance is not logical. It's emotional.

Logic says we need to consider the impact on society of what we do. The more people there are on this planet, the more that matters.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says we will be a capitalist nation. Or a socialist one. Because the truth is: we don't have to choose. We can have both. We can take the best qualities of each, and minimize the downside of each. Mixing socialism with capitalism allows us to achieve the best balance between thinking of society and thinking of the individual.

But as much as we allow ourselves to think of the individual, we must always give proper consideration for the collective.

Nice work Comrad Stalin! The next thing you're gonna do is announce your Dekulakization program.
 
"SO:

d) Individualism must be balanced with consideration for society. Most individuals must do something for society or society will fail.

And,

e) Since some are far more able to contribute, if they do contribute more, then society can do much more to enhance it's service to individuals."

..
..

How many times have you heard the phrase ---- "we have rights and freedoms --- they must be balanced by duties and responsibilities"?

Those "able to contribute more" do so by the taxes they pay -- both on a higher total income and at a higher (unfair) rate.

But do you wish to actually make this fair and have everyone pay the exact same rate on income. Oh yeah income is ALL income regardless of source like wages, tips, capital gains, interest on savings, govt handouts of any kind. Then we also have to abolish ALL ways to hide income or avoid taxes on it. No more deductions or exemptions or any of that other nonsense that complicates the tax code today. If the rate is 10% and your income is $20,000 you pay $2,000. If your income is $20,000,000 you pay $2,000,000. Sure sounds fair to me.

Oh yeah to make it even more fair we completely get rid of ALL TAXES FEES, SURCHARGES AND ANY OTHER GOVT CHARGE ON BUSINESSES OF ANY KIND. The only taxes there are will be income taxes on individuals.

What do you think ---- sound fair to you?:rolleyes:
 
"SO:

d) Individualism must be balanced with consideration for society. Most individuals must do something for society or society will fail.

And,

e) Since some are far more able to contribute, if they do contribute more, then society can do much more to enhance it's service to individuals."

..
..

How many times have you heard the phrase ---- "we have rights and freedoms --- they must be balanced by duties and responsibilities"?

Those "able to contribute more" do so by the taxes they pay -- both on a higher total income and at a higher (unfair) rate.

But do you wish to actually make this fair and have everyone pay the exact same rate on income. Oh yeah income is ALL income regardless of source like wages, tips, capital gains, interest on savings, govt handouts of any kind. Then we also have to abolish ALL ways to hide income or avoid taxes on it. No more deductions or exemptions or any of that other nonsense that complicates the tax code today. If the rate is 10% and your income is $20,000 you pay $2,000. If your income is $20,000,000 you pay $2,000,000. Sure sounds fair to me.

Oh yeah to make it even more fair we completely get rid of ALL TAXES FEES, SURCHARGES AND ANY OTHER GOVT CHARGE ON BUSINESSES OF ANY KIND. The only taxes there are will be income taxes on individuals.

What do you think ---- sound fair to you?:rolleyes:

The idiot that authored this sick thread is a socialist neo-communist authoritarian. She totally ignores the fact that America’s founding fathers understood the evils of all powerful central government and its malignant natural disposition to consume all freedom, individualism & personal responsibility. That’s why the founders created a Constitutional Republic endowed by a written Constitution, our rule of law. That sicko that posted the original word puke should pick up a copy of that Constitution, read it’s Bill Of Rights and enlighten herself with the principles of a “more perfect government.” I personally won’t hold my breath for that!
 
The idiot that authored this sick thread is a socialist neo-communist authoritarian. She totally ignores the fact that America’s founding fathers understood the evils of all powerful central government and its malignant natural disposition to consume all freedom, individualism & personal responsibility. That’s why the founders created a Constitutional Republic endowed by a written Constitution, our rule of law. That sicko that posted the original word puke should pick up a copy of that Constitution, read it’s Bill Of Rights and enlighten herself with the principles of a “more perfect government.” I personally won’t hold my breath for that!

Doesn't he sound something like this:

according-quotes-6.jpg
 
Hello and welcome flighty,

"SO:

d) Individualism must be balanced with consideration for society. Most individuals must do something for society or society will fail.

And,

e) Since some are far more able to contribute, if they do contribute more, then society can do much more to enhance it's service to individuals."

..
..

How many times have you heard the phrase ---- "we have rights and freedoms --- they must be balanced by duties and responsibilities"?

Those "able to contribute more" do so by the taxes they pay -- both on a higher total income and at a higher (unfair) rate.

But do you wish to actually make this fair and have everyone pay the exact same rate on income. Oh yeah income is ALL income regardless of source like wages, tips, capital gains, interest on savings, govt handouts of any kind. Then we also have to abolish ALL ways to hide income or avoid taxes on it. No more deductions or exemptions or any of that other nonsense that complicates the tax code today. If the rate is 10% and your income is $20,000 you pay $2,000. If your income is $20,000,000 you pay $2,000,000. Sure sounds fair to me.

Oh yeah to make it even more fair we completely get rid of ALL TAXES FEES, SURCHARGES AND ANY OTHER GOVT CHARGE ON BUSINESSES OF ANY KIND. The only taxes there are will be income taxes on individuals.

What do you think ---- sound fair to you?:rolleyes:

I would say:

a) That only sounds fair to greedy rich people,

b) It can't work. Nobody trying to get by on 20K a year is going to have $2000 to pay in taxes. If they are forced to through withholding it will only add to their misery.

c) The revenue generated will not be enough to pay the bills in the federal budget, so the USA will continue to accrue debt until it goes bankrupt.

or

d) If there are massive spending cuts to balance the resultant meager budget, it will cause massive layoffs of government workers and contractors. This will ensure the USA is a mediocre country, not great (at best,) and likely cause such a huge recession from the layoffs that even the rich won't be making any money.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't he sound something like this:

according-quotes-6.jpg

Exactly! How the leftist idiots can ignore the history of socialism and the evils it guarantees is beyond belief. Socialism is the scam that only guarantees the misery of the masses and the plush privileged existence of the authoritarian elite politicians and their bodyguards.
 
I would say:

a) That only sounds fair to greedy rich people,

Who are the “greedy rich?” According to the leftist neo-commies, they’re white, Republican racist & the left’s symbol of evil & the tormentor of the downtrodden. They’re the winners of life’s lottery, the privileged, the tyrants & the evil taskmasters.

Actually, what the left want’s you never to know or consider is the fact that oh so many, most, the majority, are actually the tireless labors, the inventors, the risk takers, the innovators, the charitable & earth’s most prolific providers, providing items & services that improve the lives and economy of all. They’re the providers of good employment opportunities for oh so many. Heaven forbid that those facts should be considered. They should not be revered for what they provide, but rather hated, taxed, And labeled the filthy rich villains of the corporate mob, the “greedy rich.” That’s the rhetoric & narrative of the mentally sick left. Government is your savior! Tax the greedy rich! Make the bastards pay their fair share, free shit for all, the glories of socialism! That’s what PoliTalker thinks you’re stupid enough to swollow.

If there are massive spending cuts to balance the resultant meager budget, it will cause massive layoffs of government workers and contractors. This will ensure the USA is a mediocre country, not great (at best,) and likely cause such a huge recession from the layoffs that even the rich won't be making any money.

PoilTalker seems unaware that because of America’s left's & right's socialist system already instituted in the central government & the right & left's Military Industrial Complex & protector of the western world, we already have a 22 trillion $ national debt & we are flirting even this day with bankruptcy!

How about we reduce the federal government to the size & scope authorized by our Constitution, pay off our debt & let the people spend their own money?
 
Last edited:
Some people are rather mistaken about socialism.

They think it is synonymous with communism.

WRONG!

The USA is already a socialist country.

Yup!

We've had elements of socialism for a long time.

Why do you think they call it 'Social Security?'

And the other myth is they think 'If socialism ever gets started it will grow like weeds until it chokes capitalism out.'

Ever hear that one?

Its BS.

The fact that we have had socialism for so long and capitalism is still very much alive and well disproves that.

We can and should have a combination of both capitalism AND socialism.

In the right measure.

To be determined by all of us.

Here are the things that make sense to me to have socialist programs for:

Feeding the poor
Health care
Basic housing
Education K-16
Internet
Electricity
Utilities
Mass transportation
Libraries
Phone service

In The Future:
Universal Basic Income
 
The hatred of government is hard for me to understand. That is the biggest thing society does as a group - is agree to be governed by this entity. We created our government ourselves. We could have created any kind of government we wanted. We wrote our own Constitution and we have lived by it ever since. It is our Constitution that describes what kind of government we have.

So I don't understand the hatred of government. Makes no sense. Our government is what We, The People, did for ourselves.

We've actually got a pretty good government. Government is managing the country, and it's a pretty great country in a lot of ways. We just couldn't have the country we do without our government. Government also happens to be the largest employer, so we have a lot of people working towards making this a great country. That's nothing to hate. That is a good thing.

Is it perfect? Ha! Of course not. Far from perfect. The government, as with most things, is far from perfect and wide open to constructive criticism. That's reasonable.

But to just proclaim that all government is bad so we want as little of it as possible? That's just absurd. Most of what government does benefits somebody in some way.

Fair criticism is one thing. Hatred is another. One is reasonable and logical. The other is just emotional.

A man is just another animal in the food chain. Man came from apes, where killing, rape, stealing, and power was necessary for it's own survival.

As man evolved and became intelligent beings, man created religion as a government by creating the first laws of mankind- The 10 commandments!

Man would need no religion, law, or government if all men were capable of following only one rule- THE GOLDEN RULE- Do unto others as you would have others do unto you!

But, even though many men are capable of doing that, there will always be those who think that rules- even the Golden Rule- are for others to follow.

And while many men also have a religion as a choice, many men are hypocrites who feel the 10 Commandments were meant for everyone else but themselves.

And even though most men around the world have a governing body based upon law, there will always be those who feel that the law of the land is for everyone else to follow but themselves.

Because for some, treating others unfairly, lying, cheating, stealing from others, oppressing others, raping others, sexually abusing others, have benefits far and above just practicing the Golden Rule, following the 10 Commandments, or the law of the land.

Just ask Donald Trump! He will be the first one to admit it!

All those things are weaknesses to him and his kind, and get in the way of seeking pleasure, getting everything they want, becoming powerful and rich!
 
Last edited:
It's pretty basic logic:

a) We are humans.

b) Humans exist in societies. Societies serve the needs of the individuals.

c) If a majority of humans become sociopaths; then society will fail.

SO:

d) Individualism must be balanced with consideration for society. Most individuals must do something for society or society will fail.

And,

e) Since some are far more able to contribute, if they do contribute more, then society can do much more to enhance it's service to individuals.

***

This is all a logical progression of facts and conclusions on the assumption that we want society to improve and continue to thrive.

And that is why we always have to think of the collective. It's the kind of guidance which, if followed by most members of society, leads to the quality of life continuing to improve in that society. Promoting the GENERAL welfare ensures domestic peace and tranquility, so that society will endure. Our Constitution wisely says so.

Socialism is all about what is good for the society. Capitalism, while providing a lot for society, is also about what a shrewd and determined individual can do for himself. And that's wonderful in good measure. Just not always. It is only logical that these two pursuits must be balanced with one another.

What is the correct balance between selfish concerns and social concerns? Like it or not, humans are becoming more interconnected and interdependent as time progresses. It is only natural and predictable that some will resist recognizing the collective in their own way. But emotional resistance is not logical. It's emotional.

Logic says we need to consider the impact on society of what we do. The more people there are on this planet, the more that matters.

There is nothing in our Constitution that says we will be a capitalist nation. Or a socialist one. Because the truth is: we don't have to choose. We can have both. We can take the best qualities of each, and minimize the downside of each. Mixing socialism with capitalism allows us to achieve the best balance between thinking of society and thinking of the individual.

But as much as we allow ourselves to think of the individual, we must always give proper consideration for the collective.

A memorable insight from my favorite Russian scientist-philosopher, Andrei Sakharov >>

"Without socialism, bourgeois practices and the egotistical principle of private ownership gave rise to the "people of the abyss" described by Jack London and earlier by Engels.

Only the competition with socialism and the pressure of the working class made possible the social progress of the twentieth century and, all the more, will insure the now inevitable process of rapprochement of the two systems. It took socialism to raise the meaning of labor to the heights of a moral feat. Before the advent of socialism, national egotism gave rise to colonial oppression, nationalism, and racism. By now it has become clear that victory is on the side of the humanistic, international approach.

The capitalist world could not help giving birth to the socialist, but now the socialist world should not seek to destroy by force the ground from which it grew. Under the present conditions this would be tantamount to the suicide of mankind. Socialism should ennoble that ground by its example and other indirect forms of pressure and then merge with it."
 
Some people are rather mistaken about socialism.

They think it is synonymous with communism.

WRONG!

The USA is already a socialist country.

Yup!

We've had elements of socialism for a long time.

Why do you think they call it 'Social Security?'

And the other myth is they think 'If socialism ever gets started it will grow like weeds until it chokes capitalism out.'

Ever hear that one?

Its BS.

The fact that we have had socialism for so long and capitalism is still very much alive and well disproves that.

We can and should have a combination of both capitalism AND socialism.

In the right measure.

To be determined by all of us.

Here are the things that make sense to me to have socialist programs for:

Feeding the poor
Health care
Basic housing
Education K-16
Internet
Electricity
Utilities
Mass transportation
Libraries
Phone service

In The Future:
Universal Basic Income

quote-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-need-karl-marx-347471.jpg
 
Hello Cypress,

A memorable insight from my favorite Russian scientist-philosopher, Andrei Sakharov >>

There ya go. Same theme.

Find the equitable balance between capitalism and socialism.

It is the inevitable conclusion of those who consider all concerns.
 
Some people are rather mistaken about socialism.

They think it is synonymous with communism.

WRONG!

The USA is already a socialist country.

Yup!

We've had elements of socialism for a long time.

Why do you think they call it 'Social Security?'

What is a “commune” if not the “collective?” What is the collective if not ‘commune-ism?” What is “communism” if not the “collective?” What is “socialism” if not all of the above?

Government by definition is socialism. Government is the collective a commune a socialist combine.

Our nation’s founders had littl trust in the collective, the commune, the socialist mob. They had little trust in the power of government and that’s exactly why they created our Constitutional Republic, with its conservative limited central government and its liberal constitutional Bill Of Rights. The only democratic institution they created was the democratic right of the people to choose by ballot their representation, representatives SWORN by oath, not to the wills and whims of the people, but rather SWORN to the preservation, protection defense of the nation’s Constitution. READ IT AND BE ENLIGHTENED!

The sole purpose of the central government is simply to protect the citizens from enemies domestic and foreign and to do “ONLY” those things that the states and or the people could not do for themselves. There’s no “SOCIAL” or corporate welfare state authorized by the Constitution as a power of the central government. Our Constitution only authorizes such powers to the states and or the people!



And the other myth is they think 'If socialism ever gets started it will grow like weeds until it chokes capitalism out.'

The growth of America’s central government’s socialism is well documented throughout the decades from FDR’s New Deal to AOC’s and the Democrat neo-communist New Green Deal and everything in between. Public education, HUD, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and hundreds of socialist handouts, ALL authorized constitutional powers of the states and or the people. 22 trillion $’s of national debt and rising by the minute. Chains around the necks of every future American. What’s to stop it now that the constitutional violations have become the norm? How do we stop the promises of the politicians who offer up more and more “SOCIALISM” election after election? We’re a national BRIBERY SYSTEM!

Ever hear that one?

Its BS.

The fact that we have had socialism for so long and capitalism is still very much alive and well disproves that.

We can and should have a combination of both capitalism AND socialism.

In the right measure.

To be determined by all of us.

Right there is your failure, your idiocy! There’s no such thing as “all of us.” Some of us, “the few” understand the pure fact that total agreement can only be found in the heavens and never among humankind. The few of us understand that the “most perfect union” is governed and controlled by a steadfast loyalty to our Constitution and never the uninformed, ignorant bribed masses.

Here are the things that make sense to me to have socialist programs for:

Feeding the poor

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Health care

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Basic housing b

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Education K-16

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)



A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Electricity

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Utilities

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Mass transportation

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Libraries

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Phone service

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

In The Future:
Universal Basic Income

A power delegated by our Constitution to our states and or the people and forbidden by it as a power of the central government. (See Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

You see, the trouble with Liberty is it requires personal responsibility.

The trouble with Socialism is it needs victims to supply its feast for power.

The trouble with Capitalism it only needs creators and customers to build a more perfect union, but where there’s Socialism there’s little to no Liberty and creators and customers need to be FREE.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top